↓ Skip to main content

Exercise therapy for fatigue in multiple sclerosis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
9 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages
googleplus
2 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
84 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
600 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Exercise therapy for fatigue in multiple sclerosis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009956.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Martin Heine, Ingrid van de Port, Marc B Rietberg, Erwin EH van Wegen, Gert Kwakkel

Abstract

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is an immune-mediated disease of the central nervous system affecting an estimated 1.3 million people worldwide. It is characterised by a variety of disabling symptoms of which excessive fatigue is the most frequent. Fatigue is often reported as the most invalidating symptom in people with MS. Various mechanisms directly and indirectly related to the disease and physical inactivity have been proposed to contribute to the degree of fatigue. Exercise therapy can induce physiological and psychological changes that may counter these mechanisms and reduce fatigue in MS. To determine the effectiveness and safety of exercise therapy compared to a no-exercise control condition or another intervention on fatigue, measured with self-reported questionnaires, of people with MS. We searched the Cochrane Multiple Sclerosis and Rare Diseases of the Central Nervous System Group Trials Specialised Register, which, among other sources, contains trials from: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2014, Issue 10), MEDLINE (from 1966 to October 2014), EMBASE (from 1974 to October 2014), CINAHL (from 1981 to October 2014), LILACS (from 1982 to October 2014), PEDro (from 1999 to October 2014), and Clinical trials registries (October 2014). Two review authors independently screened the reference lists of identified trials and related reviews. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy of exercise therapy compared to no exercise therapy or other interventions for adults with MS that included subjective fatigue as an outcome. In these trials, fatigue should have been measured using questionnaires that primarily assessed fatigue or sub-scales of questionnaires that measured fatigue or sub-scales of questionnaires not primarily designed for the assessment of fatigue but explicitly used as such. Two review authors independently selected the articles, extracted data, and determined methodological quality of the included trials. Methodological quality was determined by means of the Cochrane 'risk of bias' tool and the PEDro scale. The combined body of evidence was summarised using the GRADE approach. The results were aggregated using meta-analysis for those trials that provided sufficient data to do so. Forty-five trials, studying 69 exercise interventions, were eligible for this review, including 2250 people with MS. The prescribed exercise interventions were categorised as endurance training (23 interventions), muscle power training (nine interventions), task-oriented training (five interventions), mixed training (15 interventions), or 'other' (e.g. yoga; 17 interventions). Thirty-six included trials (1603 participants) provided sufficient data on the outcome of fatigue for meta-analysis. In general, exercise interventions were studied in mostly participants with the relapsing-remitting MS phenotype, and with an Expanded Disability Status Scale less than 6.0. Based on 26 trials that used a non-exercise control, we found a significant effect on fatigue in favour of exercise therapy (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.73 to -0.33; P value < 0.01). However, there was significant heterogeneity between trials (I(2) > 58%). The mean methodological quality, as well as the combined body of evidence, was moderate. When considering the different types of exercise therapy, we found a significant effect on fatigue in favour of exercise therapy compared to no exercise for endurance training (SMDfixed effect -0.43, 95% CI -0.69 to -0.17; P value < 0.01), mixed training (SMDrandom effect -0.73, 95% CI -1.23 to -0.23; P value < 0.01), and 'other' training (SMDfixed effect -0.54, 95% CI -0.79 to -0.29; P value < 0.01). Across all studies, one fall was reported. Given the number of MS relapses reported for the exercise condition (N = 25) and non-exercise control condition (N = 26), exercise does not seem to be associated with a significant risk of a MS relapse. However, in general, MS relapses were defined and reported poorly. Exercise therapy can be prescribed in people with MS without harm. Exercise therapy, and particularly endurance, mixed, or 'other' training, may reduce self reported fatigue. However, there are still some important methodological issues to overcome. Unfortunately, most trials did not explicitly include people who experienced fatigue, did not target the therapy on fatigue specifically, and did not use a validated measure of fatigue as the primary measurement of outcome.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 600 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 600 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Lecturer 1 <1%
Student > Bachelor 1 <1%
Unknown 598 100%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 2 <1%
Unknown 598 100%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 October 2018.
All research outputs
#471,959
of 12,388,051 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,316
of 8,549 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,104
of 242,631 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#45
of 229 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,388,051 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,549 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 242,631 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 229 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.